Recovery evidence

--- Ss. 302 & 324 --- Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd --- Ocular and medical evidence --- Motive not proved --- Recovery of weapon doubtful --- Sentencing --- Life imprisonment instead of death penalty --- Scope --- Accused was alleged to have murdered the brother of complainant and injured others within the view of complainant and others --- Motive stated in the FIR was that the accused had previously killed the brother and uncle of complainant, however, the matter was subsequently patched up between the parties --- As per compromise, accused was directed not to come to the town --- From the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, as well as the depositions of the various witnesses and other factors, it stood proved that the accused killed the victim and injured another --- The ocular and medical evidence supported each other --- As per medical evidence, the victim was admitted to the hospital for six days --- In respect of the deceased, firearm injury No. 1 clearly denoted that it was inflicted on the middle part of the chest, firearm injury No. 2 was an entry wound on the left side of the upper lip, while firearm injury No. 3 denoted an entry wound in the middle part of the right arm --- The medical report also stated that lungs and heart were badly ruptured, and the death occurred due to severe bleeding --- Evidence of motive in the shape of compromise was not produced --- Recovery of weapon was also inconsequential as the report of Forensic Laboratory merely denoted that the gun was in working condition but no evidence connecting it with the commission of offence was produced --- The manner in which the accused was allegedly arrested with the gun also rendered the recovery doubtful --- Recovery of the motorcycle was not properly addressed, as no record relating to its ownership or registration book was ever placed on record --- Case fells within the category warranting life imprisonment rather than the death penalty --- Petitions were dismissed.

--- Recovery evidence --- Scope --- The recovery of a weapon (a rifle used as a club) is of no legal avail to the prosecution if the recovery memo fails to mention that the weapon was stained with blood --- In such instances, the recovery cannot be used as corroborative evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence.

--- Recovery evidence --- Evidentiary value where ocular account disbelieved --- Scope --- Recoveries of crime empties and weapons supported by a positive forensic report are pieces of circumstantial evidence and if the direct ocular evidence is disbelieved and discarded, such circumstantial evidence cannot, in isolation, form the basis for a conviction on a capital charge --- Recovery can only corroborate reliable direct evidence; it cannot replace it.

--- Recovery of weapon and Forensic Laboratory reports --- Joint transmission --- Scope --- Forensic evidence regarding the murder weapon (30-bore pistol) and crime empties is rendered inconsequential if the weapon and the empties are transmitted to the Forensic Laboratory together.

--- Non-recovery of crime empties --- Scope --- Where crime was committed at a railway track near masjid, Supreme Court observed that there was strong possibility that the people of the vicinity would have attracted to the crime scene after the occurrence, and some crime empties would have been misplaced due to rush of people --- Such defect was not considered fatal to the prosecution’s case.

--- Ss. 302 & 449 --- Qatl-i-amd and house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death --- Sufficiency of evidence --- Exclusion of motive and recovery evidence --- Scope --- Even where the alleged motive and recovery of the weapon are ignored, a conviction under sections 302(b) and 449, PPC can be safely maintained on the basis of clear, consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, when such account stands fully corroborated by medical evidence.